Like most of the Tea Party/Conservative/Right wing/Gun rights advocates, they are just a bunch of sissy boys when the shjt hits the fan. Women as human shields?...thats the master plan of the master race that intends to deter the armed forces of the US government?I spit in their general direction.

Former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack revealed on Monday that he and other organizers who traveled to Clark County, Nev., to support Cliven Bundy during his land dispute with the feds planned to put women on the front lines in case the “rogue federal officers” started shooting.

“We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,” he said. “If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”

In His Own Words: Here’s Why the Nevada Rancher Refuses to Recognize Federal Authority

Bundy said he has “no contract with the United States government,” and the federal government has “no jurisdiction or authority” on his grazing rights, water rights, access rights, ranch improvement rights or anything else that “belongs to ‘we the people’ of Clark County.”

The rancher took his argument back to the 19th century, when Nevada became a state. According to him, the federal government did, in fact, control the land when Nevada was a territory. But, he claimed, when the territory became a state, the government turned that land over to the sovereignty of the state of Nevada, and thus the federal government lacks the power to control it today.

“At the moment of statehood, what happened?” Bundy asked. “At the moment of statehood the people of the territory become people of the United States with the Constitution, with equal footing to the original 13 states. They had boundaries allowing them a state line. And that boundary was divided into 17 subdivisions, which were counties. Which I live in one of those counties, Clark County, Nevada.”

“As a citizen of that county, I abide by all the state laws,” he concluded.

Though he has grazed his cattle on federal land for decades, Bundy has refused to pay grazing fees since 1993.

So, he admits that the federal government DID have authority before 1993? What might have happened in 1993 to change his mind?

Answer: Waco and the rise of violent militia movement to fight against ZOG -- Zionist Occupation Government (of the United States).

I wonder what he thinks when the Constitution he claims to love so much says, “the supreme law of the land?”

The General Land Office and Grazing Service combined in 1946 to form the Bureau of Land Management, which has been given the authority to regulate public lands, including nearly 600,000 acres in Gold Butte.

Cliven Bundy was born in 1947.

“There is not much of a ‘legal claim,’” Jeremy Hudia, an Ohio attorney familiar with the legal claims being made, told TheBlaze in an email. “There is a permit process [that] was originally designed to ensure federal land wasn’t ruined by too many ranchers letting their animals graze. There is no legal right to access to the property.”

“Historically, ranchers would let their cattle graze on public land, and the government didn’t stop them. Back in the 1930s, however, the land was being harmed by all the uncontrolled grazing. So laws were passed to create a permit process to control the amount of grazing. There is no ‘right’ to use public land for one’s personal gain,” he added. “If that were the case, I would start drilling for oil in Yosemite National Park.”

Hudia said the few legal routes Bundy could have taken probably wouldn’t have helped him in his quest to use federal property for free.

“His legal recourse was to appeal the denial of his permit, but he has done that, and lost. He didn’t have much of a chance because the permit process is largely at the discretion of the Bureau of Land Management, and courts won’t overturn their permit decision without very strong evidence,” Hudia said. “Most of the time the courts will defer to the Bureau.”

Meanwhile, the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association said in a statement earlier this week that it would not side with Bundy against federal officials.

Still sidetrack issues. The methods here are what should be concerning most folks.

Why did the Feds spent at least one million dollars (some reports say closer to 3 million now) for tactical operation with heavy equipment, helicopters, etc. ... when some lawyers and IRS agents could have simply shut the farmer down by seizing his farm and bank accounts to pay the back money due?

No one has explained this at all yet. Everyone keeps getting sidetracked by land use and other issues.

bamapilot wrote:Still sidetrack issues. The methods here are what should be concerning most folks.

Why did the Feds spent at least one million dollars (some reports say closer to 3 million now) for tactical operation with heavy equipment, helicopters, etc. ... when some lawyers and IRS agents could have simply shut the farmer down by seizing his farm and bank accounts to pay the back money due?

No one has explained this at all yet. Everyone keeps getting sidetracked by land use and other issues.

The federal government is infinitely in a better position than Alabama to spend money in a way some might think is wasteful.

The state is too broke to extend medicaid or set up exchanges for affordable medical care.

Alabama’s hyper-ambitious Attorney General Luther Strange, had been warned more than once. This page warned him. Other commentators warned him. If he had bothered to ask, members of the Alabama Bar Association most assuredly would have warned him, too.

Nevertheless, Strange went to court to challenge the right of the Poarch Band of Creek Indians to operate their casinos on tribal land in Alabama. The attorney general and his staff spent considerable time and taxpayer money to pursue this case. And just as we and others warned, he lost.

However, in his ruling the judge did more than dismiss the case Alabama brought against the tribe. In a stinging repudiation of the state’s claim that it had some jurisdiction over gaming on tribal land, Watkins wrote, “the bottom line is that even if Defendants are operating illegal class III gaming at the Poarch Band casinos, (the law) does not provide the state authority to prohibit such gaming.”

This ruling, if it stands, might well lead to the Poarch Creeks opening the sort of casinos that Mississippi Indians operate.

Putting his best spin on the setback, Strange issued a statement to the effect that the decision “puts us one step closer to a final resolution of this issue, which has been our goal all along.” Then he added that he intended to file an appeal.

So, more time and money will be spent on a case that, looking at Watkins’ impressively researched and reasoned ruling, would do little more than keep the attorney general’s name in the news and the Poarch Creek casinos operating.

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”― George W. Bush

bamapilot wrote:Still sidetrack issues. The methods here are what should be concerning most folks.

Why did the Feds spent at least one million dollars (some reports say closer to 3 million now) for tactical operation with heavy equipment, helicopters, etc. ... when some lawyers and IRS agents could have simply shut the farmer down by seizing his farm and bank accounts to pay the back money due?

No one has explained this at all yet. Everyone keeps getting sidetracked by land use and other issues.

The federal government is infinitely in a better position than Alabama to spend money in a way some might think is wasteful.

In Philadelphia, you can't put pretzels in bags based on an Act of 1760.

My post has as little to do with BP's query as yours.Interesting game, however irrelevant to the topic at hand.

bamapilot wrote:Still sidetrack issues. The methods here are what should be concerning most folks.

Why did the Feds spent at least one million dollars (some reports say closer to 3 million now) for tactical operation with heavy equipment, helicopters, etc. ... when some lawyers and IRS agents could have simply shut the farmer down by seizing his farm and bank accounts to pay the back money due?

No one has explained this at all yet. Everyone keeps getting sidetracked by land use and other issues.

Have you considered the fact that the Feds are just poorly managed? I never bought into the conspiracy theory here, but can sure see some Walker Texas Ranger wannabe in charge.

Politics has never been about telling the truth, it's about convincing others to believe your story.

bamapilot wrote:Still sidetrack issues. The methods here are what should be concerning most folks.

Why did the Feds spent at least one million dollars (some reports say closer to 3 million now) for tactical operation with heavy equipment, helicopters, etc. ... when some lawyers and IRS agents could have simply shut the farmer down by seizing his farm and bank accounts to pay the back money due?

No one has explained this at all yet. Everyone keeps getting sidetracked by land use and other issues.

The federal government is infinitely in a better position than Alabama to spend money in a way some might think is wasteful.

In Philadelphia, you can't put pretzels in bags based on an Act of 1760.

My post has as little to do with BP's query as yours.Interesting game, however irrelevant to the topic at hand.

It's about the same as if BP was complaining about a rich millionaire grandpa whizzing away a few bucks gambling with a neighbor while being oblivious to or purposely ignoring someone in his own family, mired in poverty, constantly blowing the last of the grocery money on booze.

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”― George W. Bush

The Propagandist wrote:It's about the same as if BP was complaining about a rich millionaire grandpa whizzing away a few bucks gambling with a neighbor while being oblivious to or purposely ignoring someone in his own family, mired in poverty, constantly blowing the last of the grocery money on booze.

....booze or lottery tickets. You left that one out. I'm not worried about rich guys betting their money away. But yes, I do think gambling is one of the most regressive taxes ... that targets those who can least afford it. Spending that last grocery money in the hopes of hitting the jackpot.

The Propagandist wrote:It's about the same as if BP was complaining about a rich millionaire grandpa whizzing away a few bucks gambling with a neighbor while being oblivious to or purposely ignoring someone in his own family, mired in poverty, constantly blowing the last of the grocery money on booze.

....booze or lottery tickets. You left that one out. I'm not worried about rich guys betting their money away. But yes, I do think gambling is one of the most regressive taxes ... that targets those who can least afford it. Spending that last grocery money in the hopes of hitting the jackpot.

But thats another thread.

So, when it's gambling, PRIVATE Business proceeds become Taxes?

Is that like when you steal from the Government, you become a Right Wing Hero?

Max M. Haiflich, Jr.Free = no regulations = survival of the fittest = SomaliaSo in summation, the Conservative Republican’s Political Platform is, LIES, MORE LIES, OUTRAGIOUS LIES, and DAMN STUPID LIES, because we represent the word of GOD.